Science and the Bible

[theblueprint_Ni]

The question is how and to what extent the natural sciences figure into Biblical interpretation. For some, the natural sciences are admitted to play no role whatsoever, while others prioritize the natural sciences above all else, and still others are somewhere in between. Which category best describes you?


A. The natural sciences are considered only after the completion of Biblical interpretation. In other words, only after what has been learned by the most simplistic, literal reading of Scripture and all its dogmas will the natural sciences ever be considered. Even at that, it’s altogether weightless and has no bearing on the interpretation of Scripture. Whether or not the natural sciences agree with Biblical interpretation is of no consequence.

B. The natural sciences are important to the extent that many subjects concerning the natural world are neither addressed nor expounded on in the Bible. The Bible does not always necessitate that every miracle and state of affairs be accomplished through supernatural means. However, if the plain language and context suggests a literal reading and the conclusion that follows contradicts what the natural sciences would suggest or imply, the Bible is the greater authority, therefore the natural sciences take a secondary role. The Bible informs the interpretation of the natural sciences, the natural sciences do not inform the interpretation of the Bible.

C. The Bible is not primarily concerned with the natural world. It is largely a spiritual message that conveys God’s salvation in human terms. Where the Bible makes any reference to natural science or history and it contradicts what is uniformly acknowledged by the scientific community, it should be interpreted as allegory or metaphor. This properly focuses the message which would otherwise detract from the meaning should we press for a literal reading. There are some things in the Bible that the natural sciences can neither confirm nor deny; therefore it should be rightly accepted as a miracle. The natural sciences inform our interpretation of the Bible, the Bible does not inform our interpretation of the natural sciences.


Maybe you would fall under one of the categories with additional qualification. I fall under B.

Here’s my objection to C:

Oximudd made the point that everyone ignorant of the natural sciences at one time believed and accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. It was common knowledge that the luminaries revolved around the earth. The Bible implicitly taught this by expressing the sun’s relationship to the earth in terms of actually motion (i.e., rising, falling, stopping, etc.). Without the natural sciences to inform us of something different, everyone who believed in the Bible would have believed in the geocentric model. Christians didn’t revise their beliefs until the natural sciences were advanced enough to conclude that geocentrism was false. Even then, it took a long time to be widely accepted due to the apparent compromise in Biblical authority. This introduced a new precedent in Biblical interpretation. The natural sciences are no longer ignorantly pursued. We have real knowledge and the proof is in our ability to create technology. The natural sciences have concluded that evolution is responsible for life and all the diversity we see. In the same way the heliocentric model was discovered through raw observation and scientific inquiry, so has evolution been discovered. Therefore, by precedent of the geocentric fallacy and the Christian capitulation to scientific authority, we ought to believe in evolution.

My argument is that heliocentrism did not cause us to alter our beliefs about Biblical authority concerning the natural world. Rather, it caused us to reexamine what the Bible actually taught about those verses specifically. It refined our understanding of hermeneutics and critical reflection. To be clear, it did not cause us to believe that what the Bible actually teaches is less literal than we originally thought, as Oximudd might contend. Instead, reevaluating those verses about the sun’s relationship to the earth revealed that the context never intended to make a scientific claim about the sun’s relationship to the earth. The subject in every case is entirely focused on another matter, and much like we do today, unless we are conversing specifically about the cosmos or astronomy, we always speak using language from the perspective of the observer (e.g., “I fell down” vs. “gravity pulled me to the earth”, “The sun rises in the morning” vs. “The earth rotates and positions itself to receive sunlight”). The early chapters of Genesis, for example, clearly intend to convey natural history and God’s dealings with humanity in the ancient world. The context is so evidently concerned with real, factual statements about historical affairs and in the scope that is plainly described. The fall, sin, judgment, redemption, and so many core doctrines are directly connected to this narrative. The difference between the geocentric implications and the Genesis narrative is too vast to ignore. It’s folly to use the Copernican revolution as a precedent to alter our perspective on Scripture so dramatically.

My view is that position C undermines the authority of Scripture. It makes it an object of critique subjected to the natural sciences. The natural sciences are essentially a pure and undefiled source of truth whereby all else, including God’s word, must be judged. The Bible must conform to the natural sciences because they are evidently more reliable. There is more integrity in believing what the natural sciences produce than believing what the plain language of Scripture explicitly teaches.

[oxmixmudd]

The question is how and to what extent the natural sciences figure into Biblical interpretation. For some, the natural sciences are admitted to play no role whatsoever, while others prioritize the natural sciences above all else, and still others are somewhere in between. Which category best describes you?


A. The natural sciences are considered only after the completion of Biblical interpretation. In other words, only after what has been learned by the most simplistic, literal reading of Scripture and all its dogmas will the natural sciences ever be considered. Even at that, it’s altogether weightless and has no bearing on the interpretation of Scripture. Whether or not the natural sciences agree with Biblical interpretation is of no consequence.

B. The natural sciences are important to the extent that many subjects concerning the natural world are neither addressed nor expounded on in the Bible. The Bible does not always necessitate that every miracle and state of affairs be accomplished through supernatural means. However, if the plain language and context suggests a literal reading and the conclusion that follows contradicts what the natural sciences would suggest or imply, the Bible is the greater authority, therefore the natural sciences take a secondary role. The Bible informs the interpretation of the natural sciences, the natural sciences do not inform the interpretation of the Bible.

C. The Bible is not primarily concerned with the natural world. It is largely a spiritual message that conveys God’s salvation in human terms. Where the Bible makes any reference to natural science or history and it contradicts what is uniformly acknowledged by the scientific community, it should be interpreted as allegory or metaphor. This properly focuses the message which would otherwise detract from the meaning should we press for a literal reading. There are some things in the Bible that the natural sciences can neither confirm nor deny; therefore it should be rightly accepted as a miracle. The natural sciences inform our interpretation of the Bible, the Bible does not inform our interpretation of the natural sciences.


Maybe you would fall under one of the categories with additional qualification. I fall under B.

Here’s my objection to C:

Oximudd made the point that everyone ignorant of the natural sciences at one time believed and accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. It was common knowledge that the luminaries revolved around the earth. The Bible implicitly taught this by expressing the sun’s relationship to the earth in terms of actually motion (i.e., rising, falling, stopping, etc.). Without the natural sciences to inform us of something different, everyone who believed in the Bible would have believed in the geocentric model. Christians didn’t revise their beliefs until the natural sciences were advanced enough to conclude that geocentrism was false. Even then, it took a long time to be widely accepted due to the apparent compromise in Biblical authority. This introduced a new precedent in Biblical interpretation. The natural sciences are no longer ignorantly pursued. We have real knowledge and the proof is in our ability to create technology. The natural sciences have concluded that evolution is responsible for life and all the diversity we see. In the same way the heliocentric model was discovered through raw observation and scientific inquiry, so has evolution been discovered. Therefore, by precedent of the geocentric fallacy and the Christian capitulation to scientific authority, we ought to believe in evolution.

My argument is that heliocentrism did not cause us to alter our beliefs about Biblical authority concerning the natural world. Rather, it caused us to reexamine what the Bible actually taught about those verses specifically. It refined our understanding of hermeneutics and critical reflection. To be clear, it did not cause us to believe that what the Bible actually teaches is less literal than we originally thought, as Oximudd might contend. Instead, reevaluating those verses about the sun’s relationship to the earth revealed that the context never intended to make a scientific claim about the sun’s relationship to the earth. The subject in every case is entirely focused on another matter, and much like we do today, unless we are conversing specifically about the cosmos or astronomy, we always speak using language from the perspective of the observer (e.g., “I fell down” vs. “gravity pulled me to the earth”, “The sun rises in the morning” vs. “The earth rotates and positions itself to receive sunlight”). The early chapters of Genesis, for example, clearly intend to convey natural history and God’s dealings with humanity in the ancient world. The context is so evidently concerned with real, factual statements about historical affairs and in the scope that is plainly described. The fall, sin, judgment, redemption, and so many core doctrines are directly connected to this narrative. The difference between the geocentric implications and the Genesis narrative is too vast to ignore. It’s folly to use the Copernican revolution as a precedent to alter our perspective on Scripture so dramatically.

My view is that position C undermines the authority of Scripture. It makes it an object of critique subjected to the natural sciences. The natural sciences are essentially a pure and undefiled source of truth whereby all else, including God’s word, must be judged. The Bible must conform to the natural sciences because they are evidently more reliable. There is more integrity in believing what the natural sciences produce than believing what the plain language of Scripture explicitly teaches.

Hi BlueprintNI,

I would weigh in that there are aspects of my position that you didn't get quite right. It could be that to you or your readers the differences between what you wrote and my actual position would not be very large, but in my view they are critical in avoiding heading down a path that truly undermines Biblical Authority. I think you have made a good faith effort and tried to capture my position in "C", so with respect for that effort, let me take your rendering and then modify it in the ways I think are critical.

Your rendering:

"The Bible is not primarily concerned with the natural world. It is largely a spiritual message that conveys God’s salvation in human terms. Where the Bible makes any reference to natural science or history and it contradicts what is uniformly acknowledged by the scientific community, it should be interpreted as allegory or metaphor. This properly focuses the message which would otherwise detract from the meaning should we press for a literal reading. There are some things in the Bible that the natural sciences can neither confirm nor deny; therefore it should be rightly accepted as a miracle. The natural sciences inform our interpretation of the Bible, the Bible does not inform our interpretation of the natural sciences."

My modification:

"The Bible is not primarily concerned with understanding the workings of the natural world. It is largely a spiritual message that conveys God’s salvation in human terms. Where the Bible makes reference to the natural world or natural history and it appears to contradict what is uniformly acknowledged as the best implications of the natural evidence, care should be taken to understand the difference in light of the relative surety of the science, and the common cultural idiomatic and colloquial conceptions of the natural world of the writer of the text - with recognition of the fact that phenomenal writing and use of cultural idioms are the norm in scripture when describing the natural world. This properly focuses the message which would otherwise detract from the meaning should we press for a superficially literal reading. In general, where miracles are declared to have occurred, the reality of the miracle should be accepted, with the caveat that God may have used natural forces as part of the process of implementing said miracle. While the natural sciences can inform our interpretation of Biblical references to nature, the Bible in general should not be expected to inform our interpretation of the natural sciences due to the overriding phenomenal nature of such references. Likewise, while science can inform our understanding of the Bible's natural references, or allow us to examine physical evidence pertinent to its claims, it can NOT inform us concerning the nature or reality of God, nor can it's mere classification of what is possible by natural law be used as justification to dismiss any miraculous Biblical event."

Your final statement:

My view is that position C undermines the authority of Scripture. It makes it an object of critique subjected to the natural sciences. The natural sciences are essentially a pure and undefiled source of truth whereby all else, including God’s word, must be judged. The Bible must conform to the natural sciences because they are evidently more reliable. There is more integrity in believing what the natural sciences produce than believing what the plain language of Scripture explicitly teaches.

may be true of your expression in C, but I do not believe it is true of my actual position. When a scientific conclusion appears to force a modification to a fundamental theological truth, the fundamental theological truth remains and it is likely the philosophical conclusion being drawn from the science that is flawed*. The Biblical Authority as a revelation of God and God's relationship with man takes precedence over any potential implication from scientific research. However, the areas where I believe science can legitimately inform our interpretation of scripture I do not believe affect any fundamental of the faith or any fundamental theological position. In effect, they fall in the same class as the debate over geocentrism ... if we see them correctly.


Jim

* (it is always possible in our human state we've misunderstood the theology as well, but for the sake of the reality of what science can potentially contribute, I'm assuming the theology is correct)

[Jedidiah]

If God did create the world, as we believe, science will not find anything contrary to the true meaning of the Bible. Truth will agree to correct understanding of scripture and correct understanding of nature.

[RBerman]

If God did create the world, as we believe, science will not find anything contrary to the true meaning of the Bible. Truth will agree to correct understanding of scripture and correct understanding of nature.

You seem to be equating "science" and "truth." No careful scientist makes that error. If science were entirely true, its claims would never change, which is not the case.

[Kenny]

D The Bible is to be interpreted as an ancient work of literature is to be interpreted, with one caveat – we know that what the Bible says is true, and this, in conjunction with extra-biblical sources of information about what is true, can sometimes provide us with powerful evidence that our interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. While, say, there being powerful scientific evidence against what, according to my interpretation of Homer, Homer said about the natural world does not also provide me with powerful evidence against the accuracy of my interpretation of Homer (because Homer may well just have gotten it wrong), the parallel does not hold when it comes to the Bible. If there is powerful scientific evidence against what the Bible says according to my interpretation of the Bible, that is also powerful evidence that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong (because I know that what the Bible says is true and I’ve got good evidence that what it says according to my interpretation is not true). The Bible is the primary authority, not the natural sciences. Where the natural sciences genuinely conflict with what the Bible says, it is the Bible and not the natural sciences that are to be believed. But my interpretation of the Bible not the primary authority; my interpretation is fallible. And (because I know that the Bible is true and that the natural sciences often get at the truth) the natural sciences are evidentially relevant when it comes to assessing the accuracy of my interpretation of the Bible. My willingness to adjust my interpretation of the Bible in response to information from the natural sciences does not stem, therefore, from a low view of the authority of Scripture, but from a high view of the authority of Scripture coupled with a due acknowledgement of my fallibility as an interpreter.

[nightbringer]

D The Bible is to be interpreted as an ancient work of literature is to be interpreted, with one caveat – we know that what the Bible says is true, and this, in conjunction with extra-biblical sources of information about what is true, can sometimes provide us with powerful evidence that our interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. While, say, there being powerful scientific evidence against what, according to my interpretation of Homer, Homer said about the natural world does not also provide me with powerful evidence against the accuracy of my interpretation of Homer (because Homer may well just have gotten it wrong), the parallel does not hold when it comes to the Bible. If there is powerful scientific evidence against what the Bible says according to my interpretation of the Bible, that is also powerful evidence that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong (because I know that what the Bible says is true and I’ve got good evidence that what it says according to my interpretation is not true). The Bible is the primary authority, not the natural sciences. Where the natural sciences genuinely conflict with what the Bible says, it is the Bible and not the natural sciences that are to be believed. But my interpretation of the Bible not the primary authority; my interpretation is fallible. And (because I know that the Bible is true and that the natural sciences often get at the truth) the natural sciences are evidentially relevant when it comes to assessing the accuracy of my interpretation of the Bible. My willingness to adjust my interpretation of the Bible in response to information from the natural sciences does not stem, therefore, from a low view of the authority of Scripture, but from a high view of the authority of Scripture coupled with a due acknowledgement of my fallibility as an interpreter.

Essentially, this. But I'm willing to go a little further. I take it that it is not only my exegesis of the Biblical text which is open to correction from natural science, but also my theology of scripture itself. Though this is done with caution. How and when one should do this is sometimes unclear.

Let us say that after a substantial period of study and reflection I become convinced that Genesis is saying something incompatible with common descent. I have explored alternate readings that would allow harmony between the Biblical text and common descent and I find them having to engage in various forms of mental gymnastics and contortions to pull off the feat. And let us also say that I am also quite sure that common descent is correct. I seem to be caught in some conflict here. But it isn't obvious (at least to most conservative Christians) that I ought to resolve the tension by granting error in Genesis. I recognise that people far smarter and far more scientifically educated than I quarrel over common descent and that perhaps I ought to withdraw my confidence in that scientific hypothesis, rather than Genesis.

But it doesn't seem like that sort of hesistancy around natural science could work in another case. Imagine that I come to be firmly convinced (again, after all the required study) that Genesis (and perhaps the Bible more generally) affirms ancient cosmological notions which are epistemically unavailable to us moderns. That the sky is solid, that there are cosmic waters below a flat earth, and so on. Now surely I cannot take the defence of ancient cosmology here. That isn't a live option for me. And remember we are presuming that I believe firmly that these ANE cosmological ideas are present in the text. It isn't just that I think there's a plausible case to be made. Rather I think the case is water-tight. Psychologically, I cannot weaken my assent, much less to the point of suspension. What do I do? These two firm beliefs of mine 1) that the Bible presents ANE cosmology and 2) that ANE cosmology is false, generate the conclusion that the Bible wrongly endorses ANE cosmology.

Clearly there are either theologically acceptable ways of adopting this conclusion, or there are not. If there aren't then in this sort of dilemma I am forced to abandon my faith (or live with some servere cognitive dissonance). However if there are theologically acceptable (orthodox) ways of holding this conclusion, then why can't I take them? As a result of this tension I might conclude that inerrancy is false, but that the Bible is still inspired and that we should have another model of understanding its authority and reliability (perhaps I don't have such a model to hand right now, but I have faith that one can be worked out).

In other words, I acknowledge my fallibility not just in exegesis but in my actual theology of scripture, holding to some more minimal limitation (something like: God has at least ensured that the core message of Christianity can be reliably discerned from Scripture).

[theblueprint_Ni]

Essentially, this. But I'm willing to go a little further. I take it that it is not only my exegesis of the Biblical text which is open to correction from natural science, but also my theology of scripture itself. Though this is done with caution. How and when one should do this is sometimes unclear.

Let us say that after a substantial period of study and reflection I become convinced that Genesis is saying something incompatible with common descent. I have explored alternate readings that would allow harmony between the Biblical text and common descent and I find them having to engage in various forms of mental gymnastics and contortions to pull off the feat. And let us also say that I am also quite sure that common descent is correct. I seem to be caught in some conflict here. But it isn't obvious (at least to most conservative Christians) that I ought to resolve the tension by granting error in Genesis. I recognise that people far smarter and far more scientifically educated than I quarrel over common descent and that perhaps I ought to withdraw my confidence in that scientific hypothesis, rather than Genesis.

But it doesn't seem like that sort of hesistancy around natural science could work in another case. Imagine that I come to be firmly convinced (again, after all the required study) that Genesis (and perhaps the Bible more generally) affirms ancient cosmological notions which are epistemically unavailable to us moderns. That the sky is solid, that there are cosmic waters below a flat earth, and so on. Now surely I cannot take the defence of ancient cosmology here. That isn't a live option for me. And remember we are presuming that I believe firmly that these ANE cosmological ideas are present in the text. It isn't just that I think there's a plausible case to be made. Rather I think the case is water-tight. Psychologically, I cannot weaken my assent, much less to the point of suspension. What do I do? These two firm beliefs of mine 1) that the Bible presents ANE cosmology and 2) that ANE cosmology is false, generate the conclusion that the Bible wrongly endorses ANE cosmology.

Clearly there are either theologically acceptable ways of adopting this conclusion, or there are not. If there aren't then in this sort of dilemma I am forced to abandon my faith (or live with some servere cognitive dissonance). However if there are theologically acceptable (orthodox) ways of holding this conclusion, then why can't I take them? As a result of this tension I might conclude that inerrancy is false, but that the Bible is still inspired and that we should have another model of understanding its authority and reliability (perhaps I don't have such a model to hand right now, but I have faith that one can be worked out).

In other words, I acknowledge my fallibility not just in exegesis but in my actual theology of scripture, holding to some more minimal limitation (something like: God has at least ensured that the core message of Christianity can be reliably discerned from Scripture).

I imagine that you believe the Bible teaches a flat earth and a solid heaven because you're inclined toward liberal scholarship which already supposes that ignoramuses wrote the Bible; therefore that Moses (or Jehovist, priest, or whoever else) meant a flat earth and a solid heaven is a foregone conclusion. In other words, of course he meant to reflect the mythological notions of his day. He was, after all, a product of his culture. Liberal theology can't accept the possibility that Moses was actually given revelation from God. The similarities with other creation myths of the day are too great to ignore. At least that's the theory. My view is that the Genesis narrative is wildly different from other creation myths. Have you ever read them? Genesis is a farcry from it's pagan contemporaries, but liberal scholarship will not admit the difference because it's already convinced that there are perfectly natural explanations for everything in the Bible. In all likelihood, the Hebrews were just more successful at weaving religious myth into their identity than others, which is why their religious traditions survived to this day. Modern disciplines in the social and natural sciences can explain everything from the first to the last. Liberal scholarship is beholden to the sciences before all else. Period. Ultimate trust is not in the word of God, but in mans ability to discover truth by his own means.

I think you're being very honest with yourself about the implications of your convictions. I honestly don't believe the Bible holds to this way of thinking at all. I really do wonder how one can have convictions about the truth of the divinity of Christ and the resurrection, yet deny so much of the Old Testament on the same basis that atheists and agnostics use for the denial of the New Testament. What makes you stop at Malachi? I don't know the extent of your beliefs. Like everyone else, I'm sure they're quite complex. Yet, what is the message of Christianity (Old and New Testament) that it might not accord with actual history? If it doesn't, then the conclusion is obvious. It's a nice story, but Richard Dawkins is ultimately right.

Jim, I'm not ignoring your post. I felt I could get something more out of this one because it touched on what I was looking for. I'd reply to everyone but I'm short on time.

[Kenny]

Essentially, this. But I'm willing to go a little further. I take it that it is not only my exegesis of the Biblical text which is open to correction from natural science, but also my theology of scripture itself.

In principle, I agree. My theology of Scripture is not immune from the possibility of evidential defeat. And, when it comes to my Christian faith, my theology of Scripture is important, but still ultimately a matter of secondary importance. It is not something that is central to my Christian faith in the way that my belief in the resurrection of Christ is, or my belief in the atonement, or my belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, etc.

Let us say that after a substantial period of study and reflection I become convinced that Genesis is saying something incompatible with common descent. I have explored alternate readings that would allow harmony between the Biblical text and common descent and I find them having to engage in various forms of mental gymnastics and contortions to pull off the feat. And let us also say that I am also quite sure that common descent is correct. I seem to be caught in some conflict here. But it isn't obvious (at least to most conservative Christians) that I ought to resolve the tension by granting error in Genesis. I recognise that people far smarter and far more scientifically educated than I quarrel over common descent and that perhaps I ought to withdraw my confidence in that scientific hypothesis, rather than Genesis.

Yep.

But it doesn't seem like that sort of hesistancy around natural science could work in another case. Imagine that I come to be firmly convinced (again, after all the required study) that Genesis (and perhaps the Bible more generally) affirms ancient cosmological notions which are epistemically unavailable to us moderns. That the sky is solid, that there are cosmic waters below a flat earth, and so on. Now surely I cannot take the defence of ancient cosmology here. That isn't a live option for me.

Yes. That’s right. In my own case, things are easier for me because I have a pretty minimal view of what is asserted/taught in Scripture. It may be (in fact, I’d guess it probably is so) that some of the authors of Scripture asserted sentences without using them poetically or metaphorically that, taken strictly and literally, express propositions that entail various aspects of false ANE cosmology. Yet, I do not believe that those aspects (supposing the above is correct) are part of the content of what they asserted, and certainly not part of the content of what is taught.

In general, I believe that those aspects of the strict and literal content of the sentences we assert that are beside the point (in the given conversational context) are not themselves asserted by us in (in those contexts). This is not just an attempt to make it easier for me to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. It is a view concerning the philosophy of language that I hold for independent philosophical reasons. Thus, in order for there to be a genuine conflict like the one described above for me, I would have to be convinced that the false ANE cosmology was to the point of what is being said, not just some incidental in the background that influenced how the authors put what they were saying.

Still, in principle, I agree with what you are saying here.

Clearly there are either theologically acceptable ways of adopting this conclusion, or there are not. If there aren't then in this sort of dilemma I am forced to abandon my faith (or live with some servere cognitive dissonance). However if there are theologically acceptable (orthodox) ways of holding this conclusion, then why can't I take them?

I would take them if I were in that situation. As I said, my views regarding the nature of Scripture are ultimately of secondary importance. My faith is ultimately grounding in Christ and his work, not some particular view concerning the nature of Scripture.

In other words, I acknowledge my fallibility not just in exegesis but in my actual theology of scripture, holding to some more minimal limitation (something like: God has at least ensured that the core message of Christianity can be reliably discerned from Scripture).

Sure. That’s where I am too. As it stands, though, I believe that, in fact, everything asserted in Scripture is true (and definitely everything that is taught in Scripture), and I don’t see any particularly compelling reasons to give up that view (although I confess there are a few challenges – for me, though, they primarily stem from some of the moral difficulties with certain passages of Scripture, not from anything having to do with an apparent conflict with the natural sciences).

[oxmixmudd]

I imagine that you believe the Bible teaches a flat earth and a solid heaven because you're inclined toward liberal scholarship which already supposes that ignoramuses wrote the Bible; therefore that Moses (or Jehovist, priest, or whoever else) meant a flat earth and a solid heaven is a foregone conclusion. In other words, of course he meant to reflect the mythological notions of his day. He was, after all, a product of his culture. Liberal theology can't accept the possibility that Moses was actually given revelation from God. The similarities with other creation myths of the day are too great to ignore. At least that's the theory. My view is that the Genesis narrative is wildly different from other creation myths. Have you ever read them? Genesis is a farcry from it's pagan contemporaries, but liberal scholarship will not admit the difference because it's already convinced that there are perfectly natural explanations for everything in the Bible. In all likelihood, the Hebrews were just more successful at weaving religious myth into their identity than others, which is why their religious traditions survived to this day. Modern disciplines in the social and natural sciences can explain everything from the first to the last. Liberal scholarship is beholden to the sciences before all else. Period. Ultimate trust is not in the word of God, but in mans ability to discover truth by his own means.

Hi BP, (hope that's not an insult, just easier to type)

I think you are making an significant error by conflating what is fact/fiction about the text with who happens to uncover it or act upon it, or how they act on it. The reality or truth associated with the information is independent of how it is used. The issue of the ANE cosmology being the 'backdrop' or 'language' in which Genesis is written must be assessed independent of whether you like the theological positions of those which tend to emphasize that data. From my perspective, the reality of the ANE cosmology being expressed as the author of Genesis describes God creative act simply can't be debated. What that means in terms of the authority of scripture certainly is up for debate, and I feel that is the primary problem. We that hold a high view of scripture and its authority have tended to cave to the philosophical proposition that IF the scripture describes creation in this fashion, it is diminished in authority or inspiration. This is what the Liberal scholar (and the 'new' atheists) take as a given - and we play to their position.

The truth is that Calvin already dealt with this issue: it is the issue of accommodation and phenomenal writing. God accommodates certain elements of the text to the writers position in order to communicate. And in other places God simply allows the writer to express His inspiration 'in their own words'. That is, The Bible is not the product of some kind of pagan auto-writing. God expresses Himself (perfectly) through the individual, not in spite of them. Unless a passage is specifically identified as being divine dictation (e.g. the ten commandments), I think we must not assume it is. The evidence is very, very strong (conclusive from my POV), that Genesis 1 is describing the flat or domed Earth, with a hard domed sky, above which are waters and beneath and around which are waters which is the ANE conception of the cosmos. I think it is very likely it's form is also adapted from the Egyptian creation epic. Our response to that as people that believe and trust that the scriptures are God's word should NOT be irrational denial of the facts, or to give up the faith. Our reaction should be: "Ah, I guess that is what God intended". And then we move on to understand what that means to us in terms of how we understand what the text is saying - as the inspired Word of God.

I think you're being very honest with yourself about the implications of your convictions. I honestly don't believe the Bible holds to this way of thinking at all. I really do wonder how one can have convictions about the truth of the divinity of Christ and the resurrection, yet deny so much of the Old Testament on the same basis that atheists and agnostics use for the denial of the New Testament. What makes you stop at Malachi? I don't know the extent of your beliefs. Like everyone else, I'm sure they're quite complex. Yet, what is the message of Christianity (Old and New Testament) that it might not accord with actual history? If it doesn't, then the conclusion is obvious. It's a nice story, but Richard Dawkins is ultimately right.

Well - see, that is just exactly what we cannot do. We do not cave to these kinds of conclusions. Our faith is first and foremost based on the Resurrection of Christ. It is That reality that defines the reality of our faith. To a large extent, HOW God chose to reveal through scripture is NOT of overriding importance - because the history which led to the Messiah, His coming, Life, Death, and Resurrection is all a reality. We do not stop believing in the Resurrection just because the creation story turns out to be something different than we imagined it to be - that doesn't affect the reality of the Resurrection. And if we have based our belief in the reality of the Resurrection on being able to prove Genesis 1 is a technical description of the cosmos and its physical history, then we've built our house on sand, not the Rock that is Christ.

But I realize its a bit more intertwined that this. But I would point out that when the disciples believed Christ rose from the dead, that believe was not based on anything concerning Genesis 1. It was based on the fact they saw Him raised from the dead. So the books that need to be literal history are the Gospels, not Genesis 1 or even Genesis 1-11. And they only need to be literal history in terms of providing a believable accounting of the Resurrection. But we have more than that. We have the prophecies of the OT which speak of Messiah that we can look to and see that Christ did indeed fulfill. Genesis 1-11 needs to be inspired and authoritative, but it does not need to be any specific literary genre for the Resurrection to be a real event.

Jim, I'm not ignoring your post. I felt I could get something more out of this one because it touched on what I was looking for. I'd reply to everyone but I'm short on time.

Not a problem - so am I. If I say something you want to respond to and have the time to do so - I welcome the exchange. Otherwise we'll just interact indirectly as the topic hits on areas we want to discuss.


Jim

[Jedidiah]

You seem to be equating "science" and "truth." No careful scientist makes that error. If science were entirely true, its claims would never change, which is not the case.

Not at all. I did say that a correct understanding of the Bible will never disagree with a correct understanding of nature. Science may correct itself, but it does not represent the truth of nature. Science, properly defined, attempts to discover the truth (admittedly not the best word here) of nature. The Bible is Truth, but human study of it may fall short of that truth, just as science may fall short of the truth or reality of nature.

[RBerman]

Not at all. I did say that a correct understanding of the Bible will never disagree with a correct understanding of nature. Science may correct itself, but it does not represent the truth of nature. Science, properly defined, attempts to discover the truth (admittedly not the best word here) of nature. The Bible is Truth, but human study of it may fall short of that truth, just as science may fall short of the truth or reality of nature.

Certainly both exegesis and scientific interpretation of the world are imperfect works of man. However, God promises that his Holy Spirit will make Scripture perspicuous through the eyes of faith. We have no such guarantee about scientific examinations of the natural world.

[Kenny]

Certainly both exegesis and scientific interpretation of the world are imperfect works of man. However, God promises that his Holy Spirit will make Scripture perspicuous through the eyes of faith. We have no such guarantee about scientific examinations of the natural world.

Which passage of Scripture do you take to express this promise? (This is a sincere question, not a challenge).

[RBerman]

Which passage of Scripture do you take to express this promise? (This is a sincere question, not a challenge).

Ephesians 1:17-18; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; John 16:12-15

[oxmixmudd]

Certainly both exegesis and scientific interpretation of the world are imperfect works of man. However, God promises that his Holy Spirit will make Scripture perspicuous through the eyes of faith. We have no such guarantee about scientific examinations of the natural world.

hmm - I'm not sure that means what you think it means Rob. There are literally hundreds of significant protestant groups/denominations all with different takes on scripture. We can't even see eye to eye on whether Romans 7 is speaking of Paul's life before or after becoming a Christian, and in fact it seems rather clear to each of us the other is missing something important. And this particular debate is not just the two of us, this is a common disagreement in the Church. How to Baptize, When to Baptize, the proper balance of works and faith, the issue of free will and predestination, the means and evidence of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life, I could go on and on.

The verses you quote do not, I believe, apply to technical things at all. They apply to more basic elements of the Gospel, the elements that are critical to salvation. And further, you will notice that the prerequisite conditions to learn of God and hear his voice are far from objective. They in fact tend to be rare. A lot depends on the humility and sincerity and willingness to die to self of the individual. Just look at what happens when the arrogant and self-serving 'interpret' scripture.

I would say that in fact, Jesus marveled at how much better we are at interpreting the signs of nature as opposed to the spiritual signs around us, wondered at how we could be so capable in the area of the natural, yet so incapable in terms of hearing His message to us(Matthew 16:2-3). So I tend to think that the elements referred to in the verses you quote are not the kinds of elements we can stack up as an example of why we should think we are less likely to understand nature than we are to understand scripture. And, almost to the point of irony, the evidence (the significant and even sometimes violent disagreements over what the text means and says) is quite to the contrary.


Jim

[rogue06]

The question is how and to what extent the natural sciences figure into Biblical interpretation. For some, the natural sciences are admitted to play no role whatsoever, while others prioritize the natural sciences above all else, and still others are somewhere in between. Which category best describes you?

It might be beneficial to give a bit of a historical back ground.

We can start with Augustine and what he wrote in De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis"):

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world ... and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the Faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of Heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.”

The above sentiment is echoed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica ("Compendium of Theology") when he writes centuries later that "one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Now Augustine wrote this in response to critics who charged that he overemphasized the symbolic and spiritual import of the accounts of the Creation and Fall. Disagreements over how to interpret these sections remains at the heart of debates concerning the role of scientific knowledge wrt religion.

In short it appears that Augustine is telling us that we shouldn't hold to a view that contradict what reality (nature, if you will) clearly shows us because we think that it is what Scripture teaches.

And in his (IIRC) Sermo de disciplina christiana ("Sermon on Christian Discipline") Augustine issues another caution that goes well with the one above:

“At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter.”

Augustine makes his motive for this line of reasoning clear in several of his writings. From the aforementioned De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim he tells us, "In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

Perhaps a bit more directly we can read in his Contra Felicem Manichaeum ("Against Felix the Manichee"):

“In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon. The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature. It is true that Christ said that the Holy Spirit will come to lead us into all truth, but He is not speaking there about the course of the sun and the moon. If you think that knowledge about these things belongs to the truth that Christ promised through the Holy Spirit, then I ask you: how many stars are there? I say that such things do not belong to Christian teaching...whereas you affirm that this teaching includes knowledge about how the world was made and what takes place in the world.”

In both of these Augustine is merely following what Paul taught -- that the purpose of the Bible, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). “the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

We see this sentiment stated again and again. For instance, St. Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) once remarked that Peter and Paul “did not teach the art of fishing and tentmaking and like matters; they taught me not how to read Plato or to be involved in the subtleties of Aristotle, but simply how to live.”

Later Galileo would quote in his defense the words of Cardinal Julius Baronius: "Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur" [The Holy Spirit wishes to teach us how to go to heaven, but not how the heavens move].

Also the great reformer John Calvin, in his commentaries on Genesis and Psalms, followed along this line when he wrote, "The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy; and in proposing instruction meant to be common to the simplest and most uneducated person he made use by Moses and other prophets of the popular language..." He further observed that Genesis 1 "did not treat scientifically of the stars" but instead referred to them "in a popular manner," and even encouraged readers interested in science to go not to Scripture, but "to go elsewhere.”



But returning to conflict between science and the Bible?

Moses Maimonides, sometimes called "Rambam" was acknowledged as one of the foremost Rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history with his works considered to be a cornerstone of Orthodox Jewish thought and study. He put that matter rather simply when he said, “Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible.”

In this view, one was compelled to understand the Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. In fact, Maimonides wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science wasn't properly understood or the Torah was misinterpreted:

"The Torah cannot be false. What has been proven to be true cannot be false by definition. Therefore if your understanding of Torah is contradicted by what has been proven to be true, the only thing that can be wrong is your understanding of Torah."

He also argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.

Of course you may choose to reject what a Jewish scholar has to say on the matter so le's see what Christians have said.

The early Church Father (ECF) Tertullian wrote in his De testimonio animae ("Concerning the Evidences of the Soul") that “Neque deus neque natura mentitur,” (“neither God nor nature lie”) meaning that since both nature and scripture came from God, the truths that each reveal when properly read and interpreted can't contradict one another. IOW, one truth can not contradict another.

That is essentially what Maimonides was saying.

Much more recently Charles Hodge, the great 19th century champion of Biblical Inerrancy, supported this view and put the matter even more bluntly by maintaining that "in common with the whole Church, that this infallible Bible must be interpreted by science" – something that he considered "all but self-evident.”

Hodge even employed the Copernican Revolution, the very issue Galileo dealt with, as the classic example of this view: "For five thousand years the Church understood the Bible to teach that the earth stood still in space, and that the sun and stars revolved around it. Science has demonstrated that this is not true. Shall we go on to interpret the Bible so as to make it teach the falsehood that the sun moves round the earth, or shall we interpret it by science and make the two harmonize?"

We can see this view expressed in The Christian Observer from 1832 (just to note, this is still decades before Darwin & evolution): “If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault.”

Personally I believe that we should re-examine both the scientific conclusion as well as the interpretation of the Bible before issuing any verdict.

I'll close with one more quote from Augustine (did I hear a groan?), from one of his letters to Marcellinus:

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there"